LEADERSHIP SERIES
21st-CENTURY
COMMUNITY
FOUNDATIONS
A Question of Geography and Identity
by Emmett D. Carson, Ph.D.
In partnership with
This guide was written by Emmett D. Carson, Ph.D., Silicon Valley
Community Foundation and edited by Jen Bokoff, Foundation Center.
Design by Christine Innamorato, Foundation Center.
Support for this publication was provided by the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.
To access this guide and other resources, please visit grantcraft.org.
You are welcome to excerpt, copy, or quote from GrantCraft materials,
with attribution to GrantCraft and inclusion of the copyright. GrantCraft is a service
of Foundation Center. For further information, please e-mail [email protected].
Resources in the GrantCraft library are not meant to give instructions or prescribe
solutions; rather, they are intended to spark ideas, stimulate discussion, and
suggest possibilities. This paper is part of GrantCraft's Leadership Series.
© 2015 Foundation Center. This work is made available under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Unported License,
creative commons.org/licenses/by0nc/4.0
Contents
3
Introduction
Community foundations are entering an era of unprecedented change and
proliferation of needs, approaches, and methodologies. This guide will explore this
precipitous moment in the history of community foundations, and seeks to look
forward towards the next phase of this sector’s mission and impact.
4
What is the Meaning Of Community?
As community foundations, what do we mean by the term “community”? Some of
the difficulty in defining community comes from its dual meaning, attached to both
people and place. Compounding this duality is the increasing ease of connecting
through digital spaces. Unpacking our understanding of community is a crucial step
towards furthering our impact as community foundations.
6
Donor Advised Funds Are Not Created Equal
Conversations on donor advised funds often leave out the vast differences between
donor advised fund providers. We dive into what distinguishes different types of
donor advised funds, how different providers engage with them, and what role these
funds will play in the future of community foundations.
9
A Crisis of Identity
Individuals are more mobile and more saturated with ways to give than ever before.
Community foundations face the greatest identity crisis they’ve faced in the last
century. We take a look at what this means for our value propositions, and how
community foundations are thinking strategically about their roles and impact.
11
Community and Financial Viability
Periods of transition bring not only new challenges, but new opportunities for growth
and innovation. Community foundations will need to think long-term to avoid potential
pitfalls and find new areas of growth.
12
Conclusion
Global society is becoming more dynamic and interconnected, and community
foundations must adapt. Community foundations are experiencing a "coming of age,"
and while this may force us to step beyond our comfort zones, engaging effectively
with this new paradigm can allow community foundations to play a major role in
meeting the challenges of our day.
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
1
WHY THIS PAPER?
Community foundations across the United States are actively thinking through how to engage with
donors who have local, national, and international interests. This paper examines how different
community foundations are responding to changing definitions of community to meet the needs of
their donors and their local communities. It posits that the key characteristic of community foundations
compared to other donor advised fund providers is their leadership and civic engagement within and
outside of their stated geography. I wrote this paper because increasingly, community foundations are
wrestling with this definitional issue, which is becoming a fundamental question to their operations. It’s
not going away—it shouldn’t go away—and community foundations have a responsibility to explore and
debate what can and will happen as a result.
HOW CAN I USE THIS AS A RESOURCE?
I wrote this paper from my perspective. While I hope it articulates some challenges and ideas that
others might be wrestling with, it might not. That’s ok. Consider this paper the beginning of what I hope
to be an ongoing conversation about the changing definition of “community” and how it will affect the
operations and approach of community foundations. For United States–based community foundations, I
hope this paper is a springboard for thinking about your practices and interpretation of community. For
community foundations outside of the United States, I hope this paper spurs thinking and conversation
about how these issues do or don’t resonate in your home countries. For other types of foundations,
you might consider how you would communicate about your impact to the communities you serve. Is
your reach inclusive and global? Your framing and perspective can influence the broader field.
WHO IS THE AUTHOR?
I am the founding CEO of Silicon Valley Community Foundation, the largest community foundation in
the United States, and have had over 30 years of history engaging with, researching, and writing about
community foundations and philanthropy. I have just completed serving as the first visiting chair of
community foundations at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University. It would be
understandable for a reader to have concerns about my potential biases on this topic, though I would
suggest that I have a unique position from which to think about these issues. As a practitioner-scholar, I
both accept and welcome candid discussion of the ideas expressed in this paper based on the available
facts and the documented historical record of events.
WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE?
You can be in touch with me, Emmett Carson, by e-mail at [email protected] or on Twitter
at @emmettcarson. The Silicon Valley Community Foundation website siliconvalleycf.org and the Lilly
Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University website philanthropy.iupui.edu both have more
information about what I do, explore additional questions in philanthropy, and share a variety of other
resources that might influence philanthropic practice. GrantCraft, a service of Foundation Center, offers
resources to help funders be more strategic about their work, and has published this paper as part of
its leadership collection to encourage a conversation about this topic. Explore GrantCraft’s resources
at grantcraft.org and on Twitter by following @grantcraft. Other services and tools that Foundation
Center offers can be accessed at foundationcenter.org.
2
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
Introduction
Oddly enough, one of the central questions facing community
foundations today is defining: What is meant by community? In
writing “Community and Community Foundations in the Next
Century” in the classic book An Agile Servant over 25 years ago,
Paul Ylvisaker boldly predicted:
There will also be a proliferation of “kinds”
of community foundations in the foreseeable
future. One can expect not only differing scales of
operation from neighborhood to region and state,
but also differential adaptations in form and style
to diversifying constituencies, needs, and cultures.1
The shifting definition of what community
means is creating a profound identity
crisis for place-based institutions
including community foundations.
While Ylvisaker’s predictions regarding
Given my role as the CEO of Silicon Valley
community foundations were not fully grasped
Community Foundation, the largest community
at the time, they accurately help to explain the
foundation in the United States, it would be under-
current challenges facing these institutions. This
standable for a reader to have concerns about my
paper makes four arguments. First, Ylvisaker
potential biases on this topic. At the same time, with
was correct that there would one day exist “a
over 30 years of history engaging with community
proliferation of different kinds of community
foundations and writing and conducting research
foundations.” Second, there are distinct and
on philanthropy, most recently as the first visiting
important differences between community
chair of community foundations at the Lilly School of
foundations and other donor advised fund
Philanthropy at Indiana University, I would suggest
providers. Third, the shifting definition of what
that I have a unique position from which to think
community means is creating a profound identity
about these issues. As a practitioner-scholar, I both
crisis for place-based institutions including
accept and welcome candid discussion of the ideas
community foundations. Fourth, this new era of
expressed in this paper based on the available facts
differing kinds of community foundations is to be
and the documented historical record of events.
celebrated as a tangible sign of their continued
relevance and growing maturity.
This paper is part of GrantCraft's Leadership Series. GrantCraft publishes papers written
by leaders in the field of philanthropy to spark ideas, stimulate discussion, and suggest
possibilities. While you read, push yourself to learn from, but also critically reflect on, this
text. What do you agree with? What other perspectives do you see? What questions does it
raise for you? At the end of the paper, you'll find additional questions that you can use to
spark conversation with colleagues and others, which you can also discuss further with an
online community on grantcraft.org.
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
3
What is the Meaning Of
Community?
Defining what is meant by community is difficult, in part, because
the word has two distinct meanings. The first definition refers
to people who live in a particular geography, whether it’s a
neighborhood, a part of town, a city, a region, a state, a country, a
hemisphere, or the entire globe of humanity. The other definition
of community is a group of people who have a shared interest.
Those interests can be both professional and personal and there is
no limit as to the number of interests a single individual can have.
Both of these definitions of community simulta-
among the cities where the first 18 community
neously coexist for all of us, all of the time. Every
foundations were established over the next five
individual has multiple identities—nationality,
years.2 It was natural for these early community
ethnicity, gender, parent, spouse, professional and
foundations, and for those that followed, to see
personal interests. These multiple identities are
themselves as having exclusive ownership of their
not in conflict with each other, but rather often
geographical area. Each community foundation had
comfortably coexist within an individual at all times.
its own distinct priorities tied to its local community.
It is interesting to remember that when the United
States was founded, people had a stronger identification with their state of birth than with the nation
itself. In fact, the underlying political argument
that led to the Civil War was whether the federal
government could force states to end slavery or
support local efforts. These circumstances allowed
community foundations to develop organizational
norms in which they behaved more like operations
tied to a community foundation franchise rather
than independent organizations.
whether states had sovereign rights to engage
McDonald’s is one of the world’s premier franchises.
in slavery without the consent of the federal
It has a central management structure that controls
government. Many of those who fought for either
who is given a franchise, dictates how closely they
the North or the South made their decisions based
are located to each other, manages the brand
on their allegiance to their home state.
identity, monitors performance against goals, and
When the first community foundation was created
in Cleveland in 1914, subsequent community
foundations also organized themselves based on
their geographical territory, usually a major city. St.
Louis, Boston, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle,
Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and New York were
People can easily maintain their relationships
to different places around the world through
technology regardless of the distance involved.
4
And, local residents almost exclusively wanted to
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
ensures that the products are generally the same.
Amazingly, at every McDonald’s worldwide, the
french fries taste the same. Certainly, community
foundations are not franchised operations. Instead
community foundations should recognize and
organize themselves to operate like members of a
trade association.
If they were to behave more like members of a
trade association, community foundations would
acknowledge that they compete for customers
and market share based on different services
and brand differentiation while sharing similar
interests in wanting to influence the laws and
regulations governing their operations. Maintaining
or expanding the tax deductibility of charitable
deductions related to donor advised funds offers
one example. Although they recognize shared
interests in establishing best practices and
influencing potential legislation and regulations
related to their operations, it is also true that
some community foundations will increasingly
compete with each other and other donor advised
fund providers on the basis of their different
missions, effectiveness, programs, leadership, fees,
and structure.
Today, Americans are incredibly mobile. According
to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are only 10 of the
50 states where 70 percent or more of the residents
live in the state where they were born, with Indiana
a close eleventh, at 68 percent.3 At the other
extreme, there are six states where the number of
people born in the state of residence ranges from a
low of 24 percent to a high of 44 percent.
around
the world
California has nearly 54 percent of people born
through
in the state living there. Louisiana has the highest
technology
percentage of residents born in the state, at
regardless of the
78 percent, and Nevada has the lowest percentage
distance involved. Through
of any state, at 24 percent. These data show that
Facebook, LinkedIn, texting, FaceTime, Skype,
more and more people have an affinity to multiple
and even old-fashioned tools like e-mail and the
places over their lifetimes. While everyone has a
telephone, there are many ways for people to stay
hometown, as we move from place to place we add
in touch with every acquaintance they have ever
to our sense of connection to those other places.
met. In addition, these new technologies allow
In rare cases we may adopt these other places as
people who have shared interests to form an almost
our hometown, but in general we view these other
infinite number of online communities in which
places as additional points of connection.
they never physically meet. In these communities,
Connection over shared interests has traditionally
happened in person in shared spaces, perhaps a
church or a coffeeshop or a library. Now, people can
easily maintain their relationships to different places
people can even take on wholly different personas,
including avatars, and their reputations are based
on the strength of how they articulate their ideas
and knowledge rather than based on their degrees,
age, race, or gender.
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
5
Donor Advised Funds Are
Not Created Equal
One of the most perplexing aspects about the current discussions
on donor advised funds is that they seldom acknowledge the
unique differences between donor advised fund providers. To
put this in context, just because a restaurant has hamburger on
the menu doesn’t make it a burger joint. Donor advised fund
providers are not the same in mission, purpose, or operation as
donor advised funds. Donor advised funds are held by 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organizations that are public charities. The individual
donor advised fund is not the same as private foundations that
have a separate legal tax status. Contributions to a donor advised
fund are gifts to the sponsoring nonprofit organization. All grants
that are recommended from the donor advised fund must be
approved by the board of the nonprofit organization. Private
foundations, as their name implies, are governed by a small
group of family members or individuals to achieve the family’s
charitable interests.
While community foundations, commercial gift
other donor advised fund providers benefited
funds, religious organizations, and universities
considerably from the enormous marketing by
all offer donors the option of a donor advised
commercial gift funds. The commercial gift funds
fund, they operate very differently. In general,
can be rightfully credited with popularizing donor
community foundations focus on trying to
advised funds and having helped to exponen-
engage donors in broader local community
tially expand philanthropy to new donors across
issues and being a catalyst on local issues. They
a wide income spectrum.4
seek to establish relationships with donors to
the community foundation and to connect those
donors with each other. It is important to note
that not all community foundations engage in
these types of leadership activities.
6
In hindsight, community foundations must take
some responsibility for having helped create
the confusion in the public’s understanding of
their work and that of commercial gift funds.
Unlike community foundations, commercial
After decades of referring to themselves
gift funds are not structured to provide
as philanthropy’s best-kept secret, many
educational opportunities for their donors to
community foundations used to frequently
learn about and support specific community
describe themselves as being just like the
issues or to easily interact with each other. As
commercial gift funds but focused on their
I wrote in a 2002 article, “A Crisis of Identity for
local community. Community foundations and
Community Foundations”:
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
Commercial gift funds have, without a doubt,
forever changed the charitable landscape. The
question is: What is the relevant lesson for
community foundations and what role, if any,
might be played by national private foundations?
The popularity of new ways of giving that reflect
new cultural norms of choice and flexibility
are to be celebrated and not discouraged.
By their very names, community foundations
are more than a charitable bank account for
marketing, and infrastructure. This is a funda-
individual donors. If not, commercial gift funds
mentally different relationship than when a
and donor-focused community foundations
nonprofit establishes a for-profit subsidiary to
are distinctions without a difference. If donor-
create a revenue stream to support its nonprofit
focused community foundations represent the
operations that is controlled by the nonprofit
future, they will be eclipsed by commercial gift
mission. The mission of a for-profit organization
funds, which are more efficient and offer more
is also distinct from public benefit corporations
investment choices. The real lesson to be drawn
that have missions to undertake activities that
from burgeoning donor advised funds is that
will consider social outcomes that may result in
the convening and community building roles
the public benefit corporation's not maximizing
of traditional community foundations have
its profits.
enormous value—a value commercial gifts funds
and donor-focused community foundations are
incapable of replicating.5
There is an inherent conflict of interest as to how
commercial gift funds balance their charitable
purpose while being almost entirely subsidized
Another characteristic distinguishing community
by for-profit interests. The understandable goal
foundations from commercial gift funds is that
of for-profit investment companies is to increase
community foundations often use their insti-
investable assets and create lifelong intergenera-
tutional voice and public standing to engage
tional relationships with families. The corporate
in advocacy efforts aimed at moving a specific
interest is to retain and grow assets from which
community topic or to engage in bringing diverse
they derive fees. The nonprofit interest is to
segments of the community together to discuss
expand and encourage giving by donors. The
challenging community issues. To be clear, as
salient question, beyond the scope of this paper,
stated earlier, not all community foundations
is how this inherent conflict of interest within
engage in these activities. However, many
commercial gift funds is balanced in such a way
have accepted that a key role of community
that allows them to maintain their indepen-
foundations is to provide leadership.6 A
dence in carrying out their nonprofit mission to
recent example of this is that 57 community
distribute the assets within donor advised funds
foundations signed a joint letter to the Consumer
while being financially supported by corporate
Financial Protection Bureau urging it to adopt
new regulations to curb predatory payday
lending practices.7
Although some refer to commercial
donor advised funds as national
donor advised funds, this
confuses rather than distinguishes these organizations.
Community foundations
regularly award grants to
nonprofit organizations
throughout the United States
and often have donors located
in other states. There is also
another issue to consider. While
commercial funds are designated
as nonprofit organizations, they were
created by and are heavily subsidized by
their for-profit parents in terms of staffing,
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
7
interests that are focused on retaining and
won two Supreme Court cases that allowed
managing the donor advised fund assets.
women's, ethnic, and environmental campaigns
By contrast, community foundations, United
Ways, and religious and educational institutions have as their missions to distribute funds
and do not have the benefits of subsidies from
a commercial operation. There has been a
great deal of concern expressed about Fidelity
Charitable Gift Fund overtaking United Way
on the Chronicle of Philanthropy’s Top 400
fundraising list.8 The United Way of America was
founded in 1887, nearly a quarter of a century
before the first community foundation in 1915
to participate in the Combined Federal
Campaign.9 At the same time, employees began
to resent the corporate pressure to participate in
United Way campaigns in which they had neither
any choice about the nonprofit organization
that would receive the gift nor the flexibility to
determine when and under what conditions to
make the grant. In response, United Way allowed
donors to designate gifts and some local United
Ways began experimenting with donor advised
funds to provide donors with greater choice.
(The Cleveland Foundation) and 44 years before
Many of the concerns that are now being
the first donor advised fund was established
voiced about the access of nonprofit organiza-
in 1931 by The New York Community Trust.
tions to donor advised funds are similar to the
The fact that it has taken 125 years for another
criticisms that were once leveled at United Way.
national charitable vehicle to potentially eclipse
The growth in donor advised funds reflects that
United Way in fundraising is a testament to
individual donors want flexibility and corpora-
the dominance United Way has held in the
tions have found that employee morale and
charitable marketplace. The popularity of new
engagement is much stronger by allowing
ways of giving that reflect new cultural norms of
employee committees to determine a company’s
choice and flexibility are to be celebrated and
charitable giving priorities.10 Historically, United
not discouraged.
Ways raised money and distributed those
Both the United Way and donor advised fund
vehicles are ways for individuals to engage in
charitable giving and are important but different
elements of the larger philanthropic ecosystem.
The traditional United Way model relied on
small contributions from employees through
workplace payroll deduction plans that were
resources annually to selected nonprofit organizations, while donor advised fund providers
allow donors the flexibility of determining the
nonprofit organization and the flexibility of when
to make the grant. In many ways, donor advised
funds represent the next evolution of personalized giving.
distributed to selected nonprofit organizations
Lastly, United Ways, religious funds, and
determined by United Way, such as the Boy
university gift funds create a relationship with
Scouts and Red Cross. Smaller, less well known
donors but usually require them to direct a
and more ethnically diverse nonprofit organiza-
percentage of their giving to projects being
tions were often excluded from participating in
operated or identified by their institution, unlike
United Way campaigns prior to 1980.
community foundations, which allow donors
United Way’s monopoly of the charitable
marketplace was so dominant that the National
Black United Fund (NBUF v. Campbell, 494 F.
Supp. 748, 1980) and the NAACP Legal Defense
Fund (NAACP Legal Defense Fund v. Campbell,
to support any nonprofit organization. All of
the various donor advised fund providers,
along with private foundations, play important,
complementary and different roles within the
philanthropic ecosystem.
504 F. Supp. 1365, 1981) brought forward and
FOR INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCES
This paper was written with the history and structures of United States–based community
foundations in mind. How do you see similar or different structures in your country? Why
do local donors choose to invest their resources through community foundations, and what
are their other options? If you'd like to share a response or ideas from another country,
please comment here or submit commentary for publication here.
8
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
A Crisis of Identity
The increasing mobility of individuals coupled with the greater
connectivity through the Internet is creating disruption for
all kinds of place-based institutions, including community
foundations. Additionally, with the introduction of the Fidelity
Gift Fund in 1991 and other commercial gift funds that followed,
and as some universities and United Ways began to offer donor
advised funds, community foundations could no longer act as if
they had protected franchises.
With a wider selection of donor advised fund
the individual neighborhood, and outward, to
providers to choose between, residents of
embrace the entire world and eventually (certainly
a community can now donor advised fund
with environmental concern) all of space.11
providers based on leadership, community
impact, fees, investment returns, online services,
community advice, and reputation. And,
residents of a given community are more likely
to have connections to nonprofit organizations
The question of how to define community is no
longer as simple as it once was. Silicon Valley
Community Foundation (SVCF) was launched in
2007. In its merger documents, its board stated:
based in other geographic communities that they
Our donors also know that social issues cross
wish to support.
geographic boundaries, and they hold different
After nearly 100 years of operating without
active competition, community foundations
find themselves having to redefine their value
proposition relative to commercial gift funds,
other community foundations, and those United
Ways, Women’s Funds, universities, and others
that offer donor advised funds. At the heart of
this identity crisis is asking and answering the
definitions of ‘community’. To some donors,
community means their own neighborhood. To
others, it is the town where they grew up. Still
others see themselves as global citizens. Silicon
Valley Community Foundation will meet donor
partners where they are and support their
personal definition of building community—
locally, nationally and around the globe.12
question: What is the meaning of community
SVCF is both the largest funder of nonprofit
when it comes to community foundations?
organizations in the nine-county San Francisco
Ylvisaker rightly understood that the idea of
Bay Area13 and the largest international
community is inherently elastic. He stated:
grantmaker among community foundations.14
Community is a word of elastic meaning; its
capacity to stretch has been challenged over the
last century and will be tested even more dramatically during the next. The changing dimensions
are not only geographical but include forces of
diversity, social fragmentation, values, and shared
interests….
The geographic stretching of community is
actually a constant process, simultaneously
moving in opposite directions: downward, to
SVCF has developed a Global Charity Database
(www.siliconvalleycf.org/ngo) with over
1,000 international nonprofits that have been
pre-vetted according to U.S. law to which any
citizen can make a charitable contribution. In this
way, U.S. donors can easily support worthwhile
nongovernmental organizations around
the world.15
Community foundations around the world are
increasingly meeting donors where they are.
It would be a mistake to view Silicon Valley
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
9
Community Foundation’s desire to meet donors
Ylvisaker’s path of “differing scales of operation
where they are as unique to Silicon Valley’s
from neighborhood to region and state.” But
well-known innovative culture. The Rhode Island
what of Ylvisaker’s prediction about “differential
Community Foundation, Minnesota Community
adaptions in form and style to diversifying
Foundation, Oregon Community Foundation,
constituencies, needs, and cultures”?
Foundation For The Carolinas (a two-state
solution representing both North and South
Carolina), Arizona Community Foundation,
Delaware Community Foundation, and others
have defined themselves as serving the entirety
of their respective states. Still, other community
foundations have defined themselves in regional
terms, including Central Indiana Community
Foundation, East Bay Community Foundation,
The Community Foundation for the National
Capital Region, The Community Foundation
for Northeast Florida, and the Community
Foundation of Southeastern Michigan,
among others.
Community foundations have recognized that
their definition of community extends beyond
a central city and have tried to communicate
that geographical reality in their names.
There are a growing number of community
foundations that are experimenting with
broadening their reach to accommodate the
changing needs of donors. In effect, they are
experimenting with the elasticity of community
in the 21st century. For example, The Boston
Foundation acquired The Philanthropic
Initiative to enable its donors to engage in more
national and global work. Greater Horizons was
created by the Greater Kansas City Community
Foundation to provide smaller community
foundations across the U.S. and their donors
with back office services. And, the Foundation
For The Carolinas (a two-state community
foundation) is providing back office services to
major corporations around disaster relief.
Community foundations may also be starting to
question the value of an explicit geographical
reference altogether. Silicon Valley, which is
served by Silicon Valley Community Foundation,
cannot be found on a map of the U.S. and its
Other community foundations have recognized
residents debate where its geography starts
that their definition of community extends
and ends. Perhaps the most dramatic example
beyond a central city and have tried to
of rejecting the tradition of using geographic
communicate that geographical reality in their
designation was the decision by the Community
names. Examples include The Community
Foundation of Greater South Wood County to
Foundation for Greater Atlanta, The Greater
change its name to the Incourage Community
Milwaukee Foundation, The Greater Cincinnati
Foundation. In describing the reasons for the
Foundation, The Community Foundation for
name change, it was stated:
Greater New Haven, Greater New Orleans
Foundation, and many others. Notwithstanding
the names of these state, regional, and even
greater city community foundations, there are
other community foundations that have defined
their community as a smaller geographical area
that operates within the same geographies of
those state and regional community foundations.
The Minneapolis Foundation traces its history
back to 1915 and operates and coexists in the
same geography as the Minnesota Community
Foundation. Similarly, the California Community
Foundation, which by its name presumably
serves the state of California in addition to the
state’s other 55 community foundations, actually
focuses its efforts on Los Angeles County.
Clearly, community foundations are well along
10
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
What we heard from the community was that
our name didn’t feel accessible and didn’t reflect
the scope of our work…We’re really a community
development organization that uses philanthropy
as a tool to foster civic engagement and
community improvement.16
What is fascinating about the decision of the
Incourage Community Foundation is their
belief that greater community inclusion and
engagement are more likely to be achieved
without an explicit reference to the very local
geography that was included in its former name.
Similarly, Minnesota Partners was established
by The Saint Paul Foundation and Minnesota
Community Foundation to create a network of
1,700 affiliates to engage in collective efforts
across Minnesota.
Community and
Financial Viability
It is important to realize that the elasticity of community also has
a direct impact on a community foundation’s financial viability.
This fact was not lost on Ylvisaker, who noted that an “equally
powerful force for expansion is financial: the greater potential of
a larger territory for fundraising and asset building.”17 Community
foundations are social enterprises. They require expert staff who
understand community trends, provide quality accounting and
investment oversight, and make ever-increasing investments
in technology to meet consumer demand and to remain
competitive with commercial gift funds and other donor advised
fund providers.
Geographical communities are dynamic places
that expand and contract based on a number
of factors, including economic market forces.
Local economies can expand due to an economic
Local economies can expand due to an
economic boom or the shared interests of
residents living in adjacent communities.
boom or the shared interests of residents living
in adjacent communities. When a community is
foundations will have approached virtually all
growing, it has a larger population that can both
of the established families, and these families
serve and provide the community foundation
either will have established a relationship with
with greater financial support for its operations.
the community foundation or they will have
Conversely, a smaller community or one that
not. Without a large enough in-migration of
is contracting will have fewer people who can
new residents, such community foundations
potentially provide financial support for the
will see their financial viability decline unless
community foundation’s mission. This financial
they can broaden their base by expanding their
reality may be an important consideration in
geographical footprint.
leading some community foundations to focus
on broadening their geographical reach.
Another consideration is that for community
foundations in central cities where a high
percentage of the residents were born and
stayed in the community, there is likely pressure
to expand their geography over long periods
of time. Over decades, these community
foundations are likely to run out of a sufficient
supply of new potential donors that can
provide them with the necessary resources to
maintain their operations. These community
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
11
Conclusion
In conclusion, what will the changing interpretation of community
mean for community foundations? Do these developments
spell the end of community foundations? As I am the visiting
Charles Stewart Mott Chair on Community Foundations at the
Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University and an
alumnus (I have an honorary degree from Indiana University), it
seems appropriate to use Indiana University, Purdue University,
Indianapolis (IUPUI) as a mini case study example of how the
elasticity of community is affecting place-based institutions.
Indiana University was created in 1820 and three facts quickly
demonstrate how closely Indiana University’s identity is tied to
the state of Indiana.
First, every president since Andrew Wylie,
represents 146 countries with over 1,812 inter-
Indiana University’s first president, has followed
national students on the IUPUI campus, alone
the tradition Mr. Wylie set by answering the
representing six percent of the student body.18 In
question, "Of what advantage is a college to
addition, there is no doubt that there are many
a community?" at their installation ceremony.
more students who attend Indiana University
Second, in 1852 the Indiana state legislature
who are from states other than Indiana. Has
declared Indiana University to be “The University
Indiana University lost its way? Is it no longer
of State.” And, third, students and faculty of
concerned with Mr. Wylie’s perennial question
Indiana University are called Hoosiers, which is
of what advantage is a college to a community?
the same nickname for residents of the state.
Should it only admit people who are Hoosiers by
birth? The answer is, of course not.
Accepting this new understanding of community
will require that community foundations give
up behaving as if they are franchises operating
within protected geographical areas.
12
Indiana University is doing what every forwardthinking place-based community institution must
do if it is to remain relevant in a global society by
responding to the evolving needs and interests.
It is embracing a world in which community is no
longer static and fixed, but dynamic and inter-
Indiana University was unquestionably
connected. Cities are doing the same thing. For
established to serve the residents of Indiana,
example, Indianapolis was recently selected into
yet its website prominently states Indiana
the Brookings Institution’s and JP Morgan Chase’s
University’s strong desire to become a global
Global Cities Initiative.19 Indianapolis is the
university. It states: “We welcome students
20th-largest export market in the U.S. and hopes
from around the globe and are committed to
the program will help it to develop strategies
increasing the number of international students
to expand into Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
on our campus. Their presence enriches campus
Acceptance of these trends is not a rejection
life and turns every classroom into a cultured
of the past, but rather a necessary and astute
exchange.” It further states that the student body
embrace of a “glocal” future, where local and
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
global destinies become increasingly intertwined.
The world and local communities have become
In their own way, community foundations are
inextricably tied together. The issues of
facing similar challenges and opportunities.
environment, jobs, and health, among other
20
As community foundations enter their second
century, they are witnessing both an end and a
beginning. Like the caterpillar that becomes a
butterfly, community foundations are coming
of age. Some will remain what they have always
been and thrive. Others will become something
different and also thrive. And, there will be
those that will be unsuccessful and wither away
regardless of if their efforts are to stay the same
or to evolve by trying new ideas. Those differing
kinds of community foundations that achieve
issues, will require a complex understanding of
what is occurring in the local community with an
understanding of the international context. The
very best community foundations will continue
to reflect the interests of residents within their
local community and the charitable interests of
those residents will increasingly be a mix of local,
national, and global concerns. Our world can
only benefit from community foundations that
can meet these changing 21st-century definitions
of community. success will share the same DNA to help diverse
Emmett D. Carson, Ph.D., is CEO and President of
people within an elastic definition of community
Silicon Valley Community Foundation and served as
to reach broad consensus on how to address
the first visiting Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
difficult social issues.21
Chair on Community Foundations at the Lilly Family
The medical profession has been able to develop
different kinds of institutions—community
clinics, research hospitals, specialty hospitals,
and all-purpose general hospitals—that serve
different and overlapping communities. Similarly,
School of Philanthropy at Indiana University during
the 2014–2015 academic year. This paper is based
on remarks from a public lecture given at the
Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indianapolis,
Indiana, January 26, 2015.
the education profession has developed different
institutions—community colleges, private
four-year colleges, research universities, state
universities, and online universities—that serve
different and overlapping communities. These
ecosystems of different types of institutions can
at times partner with each other and at other
times compete to achieve different but related
QUESTIONS TO SPARK DISCUSSION
1. What does “community” mean to you? To your community
foundation? To other stakeholders of your foundation?
2. Do you see solutions to and/or initiatives for the issues that your
missions relying on different revenue models.
community foundation is trying to influence outside of your
There is no reason why we should not believe
geographic scope? How might investment in these programs
and expect that community foundations cannot
strengthen your foundation’s work? What challenges might
and will not serve different and overlapping
it present?
communities in the same ways that the
professions of medicine, education, and banking,
among many others, have done.
Accepting this new understanding of community
will require that community foundations give
up behaving as if they are franchises operating
within protected geographical areas. They must
realize that local donors will increasingly be
interested in supporting projects at home, across
the nation, and overseas. After all, when students
of Indiana University graduate and move to
communities across the nation and likely around
the world, what would they say if their local
3. What trends have you observed in your communities with regard
to donor intent around issues of perpetual endowment versus
spend-down?
4. What challenges in financial sustainability does your community
foundation face? What are some possible ways to address
these challenges by rethinking approach and organizational
brand identity?
5. What does your community foundation offer to donors that they
may not find by investing their resources elsewhere?
6. For non-community foundations, how might a changing strategy
for locally based community foundations impact your work?
community foundation was unwilling to process
their annual gift to this great university or to a
nonprofit operating in their hometown in this or
another country?
21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS
13
ENDNOTES
1. Paul N. Ylvisaker, “Community and Community Foundations in the Next Century,” in An Agile Servant, ed. Richard Magat (The Council on Foundations: Washington,
DC, 1989), p. 57.
2. Eleanor W. Sacks, “The Growing Importance of Community Foundations,” Lilly Family School of Philanthropy,
Indiana University, 2014, pp. 12–13.
3. Ping Ren, Lifetime Mobility in the United States: 2010,
United States Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, November 2011, p. 3.
4. Howard Husock, “Growing Giving: American Philanthropy and the Potential of Donor-Advised Funds,” Civic
Report, No. 97, April 2015, Center for State and Local
Leadership at The Manhattan Institute, pp. 1­–3.
5. Emmett D. Carson, “A Crisis of Identity for Community Foundations,” The State of Philanthropy 2002
(Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Responsive
Philanthropy, 2002). Excerpt reprinted in Chronicle of
Philanthropy, May 16, 2002, p. 10.
6. Emmett D. Carson, "Community Foundations: Vital
Leadership for America’s Future," The White House,
December 2, 2014 (www.siliconvalleycf.org/sites/
default/files/documents/speeches/cf-leadership-whitehouse-12-2014.pdf).
7. www.siliconvalleycf.org/community-foundation-coalition-letter
8. Holly Hall, Sandhya Kambhampati, and Anu Narayanswamy, “A Year of Recovery: Big Gains at America’s
Top Charities," Chronicle of Philanthropy, October 19,
2014, philanthropy.com/article/A-Year-of-Recovery-BigGains/152405
9. Emmett D. Carson, “The National Black United Fund:
From Movement for Social Change to Social Change
Organization,” in New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, No. 1,
1993), pp 63–67.
11. Ylvisaker, p. 51.
12. The Vision for a New Community Foundation, Peninsula
Community Foundation and Community Foundation
Silicon Valley, August 15, 2006 (www.siliconvalleycf.org/
docs/svcf_mou.pdf), p. 4.
13. Foundation Center, Key Facts on Bay Area Foundations,
June 2011 (foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/keyfacts_bayarea_2011.pdf).
14. Foundation Center, International Grantmaking Update: A
Snapshot of U.S. Foundation Trends, December 2012, p.3
(foundationcenter.org/gainknowledge/research/pdf/
intl_update_2012.pdf).
15. Emmett D. Carson, Mari Ellen Loijens, and Samantha
Owen, “Community Foundations as International Grantmakers?”, Alliance Magazine, September 2013, p. 18.
16. Community Foundation of Greater South Wood
County changes name to reflect the scope of its work,
Knight Blog, www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/knightblog/2012/1/30/community-foundation-greater-southwood-county-changes-name-reflect-scope-its-work/
17. Ylvisaker, p. 52.
18. www.iupui.edu
19. Global Cities Exchange Initiative, www.indychamber.
com/economic-development/major-initiative
20. Emmett D. Carson, “Redefining Community Foundations,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2013,
pp. 21–22.
21. Emmett D. Carson, “The Future of Community Foundations,” in Here for Good: Community Foundations and the
Challenges of the 21st Century, ed. Terry Mazany and David Perry (Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2014), p. 45.
10. Maeve Miccio, “Predictions for Five CSR Trends in 2015,”
January 6, 2015 (www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/1492predictions-for-five-csr-trends-in-2015), and Julie Lata,
“Beyond the Check," Stanford Social Innovation, January
28, 2015 (www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/beyond_the_
check).
ABOUT FOUNDATION CENTER
Established in 1956, Foundation Center is the leading source of information about philanthropy
worldwide. Through data, analysis, and training, it connects people who want to change the world to the
resources they need to succeed. Foundation Center maintains the most comprehensive database on U.S. and, increasingly, global
grantmakers and their grants — a robust, accessible knowledge bank for the sector. It also operates research, education, and
training programs designed to advance knowledge of philanthropy at every level. Thousands of people visit Foundation Center‘s
website each day and are served in its five library/learning centers and at more than 450 Funding Information Network locations
nationwide and around the world.
14
GRANTCRAFT, A SERVICE OF FOUNDATION CENTER
For additional guides and other
materials in the GrantCraft series,
see grantcraft.org